Best tank engines of WWII

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

even if captured intact, didn't have the tanker cars or the locomotives to pull them back to Germany

US had these all over
View attachment 759417
View attachment 759416
for moving Crude from place to place, as pipelines didn't crisscross the country yet. Tank cars and loading platforms, that infrastructure really didn't exist in Germany
Or the USSR, either, Most of the Soviet Crude moved by barge.
That speaks to the ineptitude of the German plan. Even if the Germans bypassed Stalingrad and took much of the Caucus oil fields, what was the plan?
 
The Germans had a bit of a problem with diesel fuel - it can't be produced from coal
Eh? its the choice of catalyst that determines the output fuel. You need a different catalyst after the hydrogenation to get more low carbon liquid fuels(under C11) for gasoline types than if you want heavier diesel or kerosene types that have 12 to 20Carbon atoms in the hydrocarbon chain after the Bergius process to gasify the lignite coal back to the desired liquid fuel.
 
Eh? its the choice of catalyst that determines the output fuel. You need a different catalyst after the hydrogenation to get more low carbon liquid fuels(under C11) for gasoline types than if you want heavier diesel or kerosene types that have 12 to 20Carbon atoms in the hydrocarbon chain after the Bergius process to gasify the lignite coal back to the desired liquid fuel.
The longer the chain, the faster catalysts will be poisoned. Anyway, the Kriegsmarine consumed the lion's share of diesel fuel regardless of its origin.
 
By all means look it up, & recall that a tank in action seldom is 100% fuel-filled.
I tried to lookup articles relating to this but couldn't find anything, thus I was asking for references and not proof by assertion.

And yes, a fuel tank is seldom completely full, but unless diesel fuel is heated quite a bit, I don't see how enough would evaporate to produce a flammable fuel air mixture in the tank.
 
Last edited:
Germany did seize several large Soviet oil fields, but did not bring any equipment or expertise to reverse the Soviet scorched earth and sabotage.
In fact they tried to re-start oil production at Maykop, which was IIRC the most important oil field they captured but their efforts were only minimally successful. One must remember that they had only 5 months time to try before Soviets recaptured the area.
 
I tried to lookup articles relating to this but couldn't find anything, thus I was asking for references and not proof by assertion.

And yes, a fuel tank is seldom completely, but unless diesel fuel is heated quite a bit, I don't see how enough would evaporate to produce a flammable fuel air mixture in the tank.
Its the kinetic 'SHOCK!' effect that explodes it, & it blows up violently due this, not by flash-point heat-burn, as such...

Edit: Clarification added.
 
Last edited:
even if captured intact, didn't have the tanker cars or the locomotives to pull them back to Germany

US had these all over
View attachment 759417
View attachment 759416
for moving Crude from place to place, as pipelines didn't crisscross the country yet. Tank cars and loading platforms, that infrastructure really didn't exist in Germany
Or the USSR, either, Most of the Soviet Crude moved by barge.
It was WW2 before the US began moving significant quantities of oil by pipeline. The need was triggered by tanker losses in early 1942 to U-boats.

Britain also built pipeline networks in WW2 to move oil products around the country.
 
It was WW2 before the US began moving significant quantities of oil by pipeline. The need was triggered by tanker losses in early 1942 to U-boats.

Britain also built pipeline networks in WW2 to move oil products around the country.
They should've sent Admiral King down the pipeline to Jerkwater...
 
When I think of the 30-cylinder Chrysler A57 multibank engine used on some Shermans, I have to wonder what's the best medium tank engine with the least number of cylinders? I assume you can't go any lower than eight cylinders in anything larger than a light tank, such as the M2 Stuart's Continental R-670-9A, 7-cylinder, radial gasoline engine.

Then again, the 28 ton, French Char B1 had an inline 6 cylinder. Though it was very slow.
 
It was WW2 before the US began moving significant quantities of oil by pipeline. The need was triggered by tanker losses in early 1942 to U-boats.

Britain also built pipeline networks in WW2 to move oil products around the country.
Great stuff!
 
When I think of the 30-cylinder Chrysler A57 multibank engine used on some Shermans, I have to wonder what's the best medium tank engine with the least number of cylinders? I assume you can't go any lower than eight cylinders in anything larger than a light tank, such as the M2 Stuart's Continental R-670-9A, 7-cylinder, radial gasoline engine.

Then again, the 28 ton, French Char B1 had an inline 6 cylinder. Though it was very slow.


The 6 cylinder GM diesel 6004 powered much of the Valentine (c16 tons) production both in Britain & Canada.
 
An excellent example of a little engine that could.

It would have amazed engine and tank designers of the era that today's 4-cylinder Advanced Combat Engine (ACE) can produce 1,000 hp.

Interesting. I was thinking that there was this startup, Achates, that is working on an opposed piston two-stroke diesel, and indeed it seems this ACE engine is a collaboration between Cummins and Achates.
 
Its the kinetic 'SHOCK!' effect that explodes it, & it blows up violently due this, not by flash-point heat-burn, as such...
I haven't seen any physical scientific evidence for this to be correct. As far as diesel goes it is quite the opposite.

If diesel went up so violently from a kinetic shock then no transport of any type would use it, as an accident
creating kinetic shock would cause a devastating explosion every time.

Diesel doesn't simply explode from such shocks. Bullets have a lot of kinetic energy but they don't make
diesel or petrol in a fuel tank explode from the energy they carry. It doesn't happen that way at all.
 
I haven't seen any physical scientific evidence for this to be correct. As far as diesel goes it is quite the opposite.

If diesel went up so violently from a kinetic shock then no transport of any type would use it, as an accident
creating kinetic shock would cause a devastating explosion every time.

Diesel doesn't simply explode from such shocks. Bullets have a lot of kinetic energy but they don't make
diesel or petrol in a fuel tank explode from the energy they carry. It doesn't happen that way at all.
The shock intensity from a supersonic solid-shot fired by a sizable tank/anti-tank gun is orders of magnitude higher, though...
 
The shock intensity from a supersonic solid-shot fired by a sizable tank/anti-tank gun is orders of magnitude higher, though...
Gasoline (Petrol) is an aromatic flammable compound. It's vapors burn, not the liquid.

Diesel is a combustible compound and it will combust if introduced to an open flame.
In order to get diesel to "detonate", it has to be compressed to a high degree in a contained space (I.e.: piston cylinder).

"Kinetic energy" in the form of a projectile, striking a diesel fuel tank, will not create a Hollywood style explosion.

You can get a diesel powered AFV to burn if it's struck in a way that spills diesel fuel onto the engine's exhaust manifolds or an open/existing flame. At that point, the fire will gain intensity as the fire gets hotter, igniting the diesel faster as it goes.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back